Save the Goliath Grouper!

[100days-a-year]

Best part about this is going to be watching the faces of people when the FWC and NOAA do their job as required and open them back up in the next few years in some fashion. Same for the shark species that are healthy enough to sustain harvest. Gonna happen, the federal and state management guidelines are pretty clear and while ponderous and slow moving will reflect the the actual health of the population and not the wishes of those who wish and open or closed season for personal reasons without regards for the science in the matter.
The US has one of the healthiest fisheries in the world because of the folks in charge are unswayed by frothy emotional appeal the kooks on either end of spectrum.

 

[HalcyonDaze]

Best part about this is going to be watching the faces of people when the FWC and NOAA do their job as required and open them back up in the next few years in some fashion. Same for the shark species that are healthy enough to sustain harvest. Gonna happen, the federal and state management guidelines are pretty clear and while ponderous and slow moving will reflect the the actual health of the population and not the wishes of those who wish and open or closed season for personal reasons without regards for the science in the matter.
The US has one of the healthiest fisheries in the world because of the folks in charge are unswayed by frothy emotional appeal the kooks on either end of spectrum.

Most shark species are already open to levels of sustainable harvest. The problem is the people claiming they aren't don't want a "sustainable" fishery; they want a population reduction which by definition is not sustainable. That was explained in the shark panel in the Wednesday morning session; when one of the commissioners asked why the commercial shark landings in FL went from about 7 million pounds per year in 1990 to maybe half a million pounds per year in recent years (figures from the panel testimony, haven't confirmed from records), the blunt answer from Bob Hueter over at Mote was because in 1990 we were fishing it into oblivion. The recreational charter captain on that panel also claimed there's no commercial shark fishing off Jupiter where he fishes, which is BS.

Personally, I'm not opposed to sustainable harvest when the data says it's doable, so put me in that "unswayed by frothy emotional appeal" camp. Unfortunately, the push to reopen goliaths seems primarily driven by people who, even if you had them personally pump the stomachs of a couple dozen goliaths and not come up with any game fish would scream and yell that they're decimating the reefs and need to be wiped out. It's almost as funny to me seeing those types fume about the proposed tag cap, slot limit, and not being able to spear them if this harvest goes through (except for the comments about pulling them up and leaving them to float) - Fl takes steps to open Goliath grouper - The Hull Truth - Boating and Fishing Forum

 

[johndiver999]

Does anyone really believe that taking 100 fish per year (assuming the catch was distributed over both coasts and into the keys) is NOT sustainable? There are thousands and thousands of the fish in those areas. There is no way that a reduction in the population of just 100 fish would even be measurable.

Obviously the population could sustain a take of 100 individuals in one year. We want the population to be robust enough to withstand unusual challenges that could actually threaten viability. However, if there were some kind of catastrophic environmental disaster that was wide spread, like red tides or cold kills, the impacts would be obvious and subsequent harvests could be curtailed. Taking less than 0.1% of the population per year is not going to impact the recovery in a meaningful manner.

 

[CuzzA]

Most shark species are already open to levels of sustainable harvest. The problem is the people claiming they aren't don't want a "sustainable" fishery; they want a population reduction which by definition is not sustainable. That was explained in the shark panel in the Wednesday morning session; when one of the commissioners asked why the commercial shark landings in FL went from about 7 million pounds per year in 1990 to maybe half a million pounds per year in recent years (figures from the panel testimony, haven't confirmed from records), the blunt answer from Bob Hueter over at Mote was because in 1990 we were fishing it into oblivion. The recreational charter captain on that panel also claimed there's no commercial shark fishing off Jupiter where he fishes, which is BS.

Personally, I'm not opposed to sustainable harvest when the data says it's doable, so put me in that "unswayed by frothy emotional appeal" camp. Unfortunately, the push to reopen goliaths seems primarily driven by people who, even if you had them personally pump the stomachs of a couple dozen goliaths and not come up with any game fish would scream and yell that they're decimating the reefs and need to be wiped out. It's almost as funny to me seeing those types fume about the proposed tag cap, slot limit, and not being able to spear them if this harvest goes through (except for the comments about pulling them up and leaving them to float) - Fl takes steps to open Goliath grouper - The Hull Truth - Boating and Fishing Forum

The Bull Shark is the only species I have seen that is becoming problematic. I can assure you that you'd be hard pressed to scuba dive the Florida Middle Grounds in the summer. Even absent of spearfishing you will drop down on any spot and have a pack of three bull sharks rush you and start circling. Their behavior likely altered by spearfishing. Nevertheless, you are right that they are a species open for taking. The banning of long lines, abundance of red snapper, warmer water likely leading to less cold snap kills has certainly led to an explosion in their populations from just several years ago. A lot of commercial spearfishermen won't dive the grounds in the summer because it's too dangerous. I don't know what the answer is because I'm not really a fan of long lining.

For what it's worth, here are the sharks regulations. I will note they still call our topic fish the Jewfish. I guess the FFWC is anti-Semitic.

Sharks | eRegulations

 

[greeniguana]

A) take a moment to review the CVs of FWC board members
B) take a moment to review FWCs past record of managing "conservation" funds
C) take a moment and review FWCs record of data collection.

It's astonishing that they get anything done, really.

 

[scubadada]

I've been diving Boynton Beach, West Palm, and Jupiter, year round, for almost a dozen years and nearly 1,200 dives. I am not a hunter and do the majority of my dives solo.

I'm not sure that I'm seeing Bull Sharks more frequently now, compared to the past. The one area I dive where it seems Bull Sharks are conditioned by feeding is Deep Ledge in Jupiter. Though the operator I use does not feed, the guide makes sounds similar to those of the feeding ops and the Bull Sharks often come to us. I have had them stay with us for the entire dive on occasion. It is uncommon to see Bull Sharks on the other Jupiter Reefs, though Reef Sharks are quite common.

Bull Sharks are not common on the reefs of Boynton Beach. Sightings are more common on some of the deeper north sites such as the 75 or the 95. I have always occasionally seen Bull Sharks at other sites, more commonly on the outside reef or on the Castor. I have seen several so far this year. It has recently been pointed out to me by @tekkydiver that some of these may be Sandbar Sharks. I have to try to pay more attention in the future.

Anecdotally, I have heard that hunters, particularly spearfisherman, may have a different experience with Bull Sharks, I would like to hear from some of them on this topic.

 

[HalcyonDaze]

I've been diving Boynton Beach, West Palm, and Jupiter, year round, for almost a dozen years and nearly 1,200 dives. I am not a hunter and do the majority of my dives solo.

I'm not sure that I'm seeing Bull Sharks more frequently now, compared to the past. The one area I dive where it seems Bull Sharks are conditioned by feeding is Deep Ledge in Jupiter. Though the operator I use does not feed, the guide makes sounds similar to those of the feeding ops and the Bull Sharks often come to us. I have had them stay with us for the entire dive on occasion. It is uncommon to see Bull Sharks on the other Jupiter Reefs, though Reef Sharks are quite common.

Bull Sharks are not common on the reefs of Boynton Beach. Sightings are more common on some of the deeper north sites such as the 75 or the 95. I have always occasionally seen Bull Sharks at other sites, more commonly on the outside reef or on the Castor. I have seen several so far this year. It has recently been pointed out to me by @tekkydiver that some of these may be Sandbar Sharks. I have to try to pay more attention in the future.

Anecdotally, I have heard that hunters, particularly spearfisherman, may have a different experience with Bull Sharks, I would like to hear from some of them on this topic.

That exact question (Jupiter vs. Boynton) got asked on the shark panel. The answer that came back is that at Boynton the shelf is narrower; it drops off before you hit the Gulf Stream. At Jupiter it extends out into the Gulf Stream; that creates a sort of "hot spot" where you have a combination of a reef ledge/shelf and a warm current system. North of Jupiter the FL coastline angles away to the northwest, so while the shelf does broaden out Jupiter is the closest point of the coast to the Gulf Stream. You'll also see things like hundreds-strong schools of jack crevalle, bonita, or kingfish out there; that area was always sharky because that's where the prey is.

That's an interesting detail about your op mimicking the sounds; I know a couple of the Jupiter dive ops at least used to rag hard on the feeding ops but damned if they didn't swoop in on the sites right afterwards. The northern end of Palm Beach was known as a place you went to see sharks even during the time between when the state waters feeding ban went into effect in 2002 and the federal waters games started around 2013; those dive operators who used to promote shark sightings on their trips were no longer the "go-to" boats after that.

Sandbars versus bulls are pretty easy to tell apart once you get the hang of it. Sandbars have a much less robust body profile and their dorsal and pectoral fins make them look like a kid wearing clown shoes (or an Imperial shuttle from Star Wars, as one friend put it). Their swimming motion is also more of a full-body wiggle. I've definitely seen them hanging around in small numbers in southern Palm Beach County; friend of mine also recently told me the area right off the sewage outfall by Haulover in Dade attracts a bunch. They're relatively common to see out on the ledge in the summer off Jupiter. Bulls on the other hand also have big fins, but they actually look like they fit them - a bull looks and swims like a weightlifter strutting out of the gym; very stiff and it looks like the front half doesn't flex at all. Behavior-wise sandbars remind me of a dog that will be all meek and polite when you have your eye on it, then when you aren't looking it'll take a sandwich off the counter. Bulls on the other hand are either pretty standoffish or will give you all you can handle; I think a lot of it depends on the situation and relative numbers. Last time I was out at Lemon Drop we had two bulls join us as the current pushed offshore; they each made one hot pass at the start and then afterwards decided a tangle of five humans and three lemon sharks was too much socializing for them.

Sandbar:

Bull:

 

[scubadada]

Thanks @HalcyonDaze

I've been doing better lately, paying attention to relative size and shape of the dorsal fin and looking for the dorsal ridge. As you point out, they often don't hang around very long or come very close, making it more difficult.

 

[CuzzA]

That exact question (Jupiter vs. Boynton) got asked on the shark panel. The answer that came back is that at Boynton the shelf is narrower; it drops off before you hit the Gulf Stream. At Jupiter it extends out into the Gulf Stream; that creates a sort of "hot spot" where you have a combination of a reef ledge/shelf and a warm current system. North of Jupiter the FL coastline angles away to the northwest, so while the shelf does broaden out Jupiter is the closest point of the coast to the Gulf Stream. You'll also see things like hundreds-strong schools of jack crevalle, bonita, or kingfish out there; that area was always sharky because that's where the prey is.

That's an interesting detail about your op mimicking the sounds; I know a couple of the Jupiter dive ops at least used to rag hard on the feeding ops but damned if they didn't swoop in on the sites right afterwards. The northern end of Palm Beach was known as a place you went to see sharks even during the time between when the state waters feeding ban went into effect in 2002 and the federal waters games started around 2013; those dive operators who used to promote shark sightings on their trips were no longer the "go-to" boats after that.

Sandbars versus bulls are pretty easy to tell apart once you get the hang of it. Sandbars have a much less robust body profile and their dorsal and pectoral fins make them look like a kid wearing clown shoes (or an Imperial shuttle from Star Wars, as one friend put it). Their swimming motion is also more of a full-body wiggle. I've definitely seen them hanging around in small numbers in southern Palm Beach County; friend of mine also recently told me the area right off the sewage outfall by Haulover in Dade attracts a bunch. They're relatively common to see out on the ledge in the summer off Jupiter. Bulls on the other hand also have big fins, but they actually look like they fit them - a bull looks and swims like a weightlifter strutting out of the gym; very stiff and it looks like the front half doesn't flex at all. Behavior-wise sandbars remind me of a dog that will be all meek and polite when you have your eye on it, then when you aren't looking it'll take a sandwich off the counter. Bulls on the other hand are either pretty standoffish or will give you all you can handle; I think a lot of it depends on the situation and relative numbers. Last time I was out at Lemon Drop we had two bulls join us as the current pushed offshore; they each made one hot pass at the start and then afterwards decided a tangle of five humans and three lemon sharks was too much socializing for them.

Sandbar:
View attachment 659311

Bull:
View attachment 659312

Good post. The tall dorsal is the dead giveaway for the sandbar. I usually see the most of them in Spring. The juveniles act like they are on crack. To add about bull shark behavior, they are unpredictable. One second they are just cruising around and the next they're coming at you. They are definitely much more bolder when in packs. The Middle Grounds is all reef and ledges. No drop offs. It is interesting just how different the same species can be in different geographical areas.

 

[HalcyonDaze]

Does anyone really believe that taking 100 fish per year (assuming the catch was distributed over both coasts and into the keys) is NOT sustainable? There are thousands and thousands of the fish in those areas. There is no way that a reduction in the population of just 100 fish would even be measurable.

Obviously the population could sustain a take of 100 individuals in one year. We want the population to be robust enough to withstand unusual challenges that could actually threaten viability. However, if there were some kind of catastrophic environmental disaster that was wide spread, like red tides or cold kills, the impacts would be obvious and subsequent harvests could be curtailed. Taking less than 0.1% of the population per year is not going to impact the recovery in a meaningful manner.

Do I think it will have an effect? Well, there things get slippery. Goliath grouper have swim bladders; if you pull one up from depth, measure it, and find out it's not in the slot limit you have to vent it before release. Given the rather negative attitude harvest proponents have towards them, I can easily see that "oops, floated away before I could get it back down" comment from the THT thread becoming widespread and racking up a lot of unreported mortalities. With sharks, I wonder if the number we see with gunshot wounds are being peppered by frustrated anglers trying to keep them away from their fish or if they're being hooked, shot, and cut loose to "tax the tax man" beyond the 2-per day recreational limit.

The big problem from my perspective - which I focused on in my public comments - is twofold. First, FWRI did not make a strong case for "the population can support this;" if they come back with a genetic effective population size, higher-quality abundance counts, evidence the older age classes have recovered, and maybe make an actual effort to dig back into the records and figure out just how hard goliaths were fished in the 40-50 years before they closed, that would change my opinion. Second, the whole thing is driven by the notion that they're "imbalancing the ecosystem" and competing with fishermen. It's not something like red snapper which has a significant market value, or a real sport fish like tarpon. If fishermen aren't noticing a decrease in goliath interactions, they're going to ask for those 100 tags to be upped to 1000 and to add spearing. The pressure is going to keep climbing until you get a decrease, and then it's going to be a fight to slam the brakes back on. That's a worst-case scenario, but when the proponents are claiming the population is out of control and needs to be culled it's the logical end result.

I've referenced this lecture a few times; the bit I think is relevant here is at around the 10:30 mark where Dr. Lowe discusses the the recovery of the California sea lion; at the time of this talk (2016) NOAA had concluded that California sea lions had reached their carrying capacity at 220,000-370,000 individuals: At that level, you see the population growth start to level off; nature's way of capping things is starvation, predation, disease, reproductive failure, emigration, or all of the above. Goliaths can't just multiply and multiply and multiply until they eat everything off the reefs; if anything reef surveys showed habitats with goliaths had more smaller fish on them (including gamefish, although curiously ones under the legal size limit; I doubt goliaths read up on FWC regs).